5 ms·
If you put a human in charge of a judgement call, mostly there are mechanisms to monitor them, a requirement that they give reasons for their decisions, and mec
by jimmytidey 9y ago
If you put a human in charge of a judgement call, mostly there are mechanisms to monitor them, a requirement that they give reasons for their decisions, and mechanisms to appeal those judgements.
We aren't used to having to do that with decisions made by computers.
It's not that AI makes better or worse decisions, it's the way we treat those decisions.
- throwaway84742 9y agoSame as with AI, it is not economical to monitor human decisions, so mostly it doesn’t actually happen. See eg Youtube demonetization as a particularly illustrative example.
- iguy 9y ago"a requirement that they give reasons for their decisions" But this is mostly a sham. People lie about their reasons for doing things, even to themselves. Especially when they know what reasons are publicly acceptable. Maybe the major difference is that it's much easier to run experiments on computers. I mean people try this on humans but it's very hard to do realistically: most of those studies where you submit 1000 CVs with varying details are garbage, because they can only access an unrealistic part of the process (I mean who ever got a job without networking? etc). Whereas on almost any computer system you feed it completely realistic fake data.